Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : WAR & CRISIS REPORTING
Quality sacrificed at altar of 24-hour news by J Dettmer 
Quality sacrificed at altar of 24-hour news. (political notebook).(Iraq war news coverage) Insight on the News, April 29, 2003, by Jamie Dettmer This has been a harsh war for journalism. A handful of good practitioners were killed in action, including 51-year-old Terry Lloyd, a veteran foreign correspondent for Britain's Independent Television News. The urbane Lloyd was an old-style journalist--keen to be first but always determined to be accurate, and his experience and knowledge allowed him to balance the two. Then there was Michael Kelly, the editor-at-large of the Atlantic Monthly, whose caustic conservative commentary was respected widely and who gave up the comforts of armchair punditry and went forth into battle for the final time. Both Kelly and Lloyd maintained their usual high standards when covering the war. That can't be said of the bulk of TV and print reporters marauding around the Iraqi battlefield and neighboring states. Many have demonstrated an ignorance of warfare and the Middle East that would have appalled Lloyd and Kelly. As ever the war drew a fair number of free-lancers, some highly experienced but most eager young amateurs who had thoughts of making a name for themselves and weren't too careful how they set out to do it. The BBC's Allan Little, a veteran war correspondent, wrote a column shortly after Lloyd's death highlighting the complaints of an experienced TV cameraman about the risks his free-lance producer and reporter were ready to run on a battlefield they didn't understand. "They scare the hell out of me," he lamented. More shocking, though, has been the lack of expertise and understanding exhibited by many staff journalists and their media organizations. They failed time and again even to try to cut through the fog of war by providing authentic context for their reports. The best on offer most of the time was the "boyish enthusiasm" of the embedded correspondents--hardly a triumph in balanced or accurate journalism. Most TV executives don't see it this way. They have eyes only for the pictures and the huge technological advance that has come with real-time war coverage. The response to that should be great visuals, pity about the commentary, though. Inexperienced and subpar journalism led to some major mistakes, and to the acceptance of disinformation and misinformation as reliable reporting. The lines between fact and propaganda became disturbingly blurred. Part of the reason for that came also from the demands of round-the-clock news that resulted in military claims being relayed instantly to millions without confirmation or verification. False reporting came quickly. Take for example the battle for Umm Qasr. That southern Iraqi deep-sea port was an early target and, by the first weekend of the war it had been reported "taken" several times by the military and the media. In fact, the city was taken three days later. Many false reports can be traced back to British military personnel and to Defense Minister Geoff Hoon, whose claims eventually became more gingerly treated by the media. It was the British who talked up a rebellion in Basra only to have to backpedal, and it was the British who claimed to have captured an Iraqi general when it turned out they hadn't. Indeed British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram was forced to backtrack in the House of Commons on claims that coalition troops had stumbled on evidence of Iraqi chemical-warfare capability. "We have discovered stocks of chemical weapons and other aspects related to nuclear, biological and chemical threats," he announced, only to have to concede minutes later that what had been discovered were protective suits left behind by Iraqi forces. Of course, the Iraqis were no slouches when it came to exploiting the media's need for 24-hour news. Appropriately on April 1, Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf claimed that U.S. warplanes had struck two buses bringing American and European peace activists to Baghdad from neighboring Jordan. He said: "These were human shields who were coming to Baghdad to be deployed.... Many of them were injured and taken to hospital at Rutba. The brave Americans start shooting Americans." That allegation was relayed around the world for several hours before the story was discounted. The only charred bus on the highway between Amman and Baghdad was a Syrian one that U.S. warplanes accidentally had hit several days before. And Jordanian officials said they knew nothing about injured American or European peace activists being ferried to Rutba for medical treatment. In the weeks to come questions no doubt will be asked about the clashing interests of the military and the media and the role of war propaganda. There will be learned symposiums and seminars, and the professionals from both sides will have their say. The TV executives will rest content with the real-time pictures they secured--the military on both sides of the Atlantic will talk up the propaganda benefits of the embedded-reporter system, one modeled on the Second World War. But was the actual reporting better in terms of quality this time around compared with, say, the 1991 Persian Gulf War? Many journalists don't think so, and they suspect their credibility once again has been damaged by the insatiable appetite of 24-hour news. JAMIE DETTMER IS A SENIOR EDITOR FOR Insight. COPYRIGHT 2003 News World Communications, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group |